A viral video of an arrest has sparked public outrage and questions about police accountability, highlighting the need for systemic reform and transparency.
IT takes only 29 seconds to shake public confidence in a system. A short video showing a suspect pinned down with an officer’s foot on his head has sparked more than outrage.
It has fed a quiet, growing fear: If in public – under watchful eyes and recording phones – what happens behind closed doors, in lock-ups or interrogation rooms?
The police response was swift and clear: force must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. This is not a mere ideal; it is the foundation of legitimate policing.
Policing is undeniably difficult. Officers face real dangers – armed suspects, unpredictable behaviour and situations that can escalate in seconds. Precisely because they hold significant power, restraint cannot be optional; it must be built into the system.
When force continues after a suspect is subdued, it ceases to be control and becomes punishment – a critical line.
The law permits reasonable force to make an arrest; it does not permit humiliation or retaliation. Once policing feels punitive, it loses its moral authority.
The larger problem is how these incidents ripple outward. A viral video becomes the lens through which people interpret what they cannot see.
If excessive force can occur in broad daylight, in full view of bystanders, what assurance is there for detainees in closed rooms? That is where suspicion grows – and trust erodes.
Reassigning the officer to desk duty during the investigation is a procedural step, not accountability.
Malaysians are no longer asking whether there will be an investigation; they are asking whether its outcome will be transparent, independent, and meaningful. Without that, internal reviews risk being seen as cover-ups.
The creation of IPCMC (Independent Police Conduct Commission) is a step forward but questions remain about its power and reach.
For oversight to be effective, it cannot merely observe; it must also be able to act – investigate, compel evidence and recommend prosecution. Independence is not a slogan; it is a structural requirement.
Lock-ups cannot remain black holes. Continuous CCTV, mandatory medical checks on arrival and automatic inquests for custodial deaths are not luxuries – they are basic safeguards. When the system is visible, speculation gives way to trust.
Technology can help. Body-worn cameras, used consistently and managed independently, provide a reliable record of interactions between police and the public. They protect officers from false accusations and citizens from abuse.
In a world where perception often outpaces facts, evidence should lead the story. Gadgets and policies alone won’t fix what is, at its core, a cultural problem. Policing must shift from a force-first mindset to a professionalism-first one.
De-escalation should be instinct, not the exception. Training must emphasise judgement under pressure, respect for human dignity and the simple reality that every action will be seen – not only by superiors but by the public.
The police force itself has a crucial role to play. Publishing data on use-of-force incidents, complaints and disciplinary outcomes is a powerful step toward transparency.
What gets measured gets managed and what gets shared builds trust.
At the end of the day, the issue is not whether the police should have power – they must. The real question is whether that power is exercised within clear, fair and accountable boundaries.
Public trust, once broken, is difficult to rebuild, but not impossible. It begins with recognising that perception matters as much as procedure, that accountability must be visible and that dignity must be preserved – even when arresting someone accused of an offence.
Ultimately, a nation’s policing is not measured by how forcefully it can act but by how wisely it chooses restraint.
K.T. Maran
Seremban
